This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A majority of delete votes is one thing. A majority of delete votes led by misinformation and parroting a false claim by the AfD creator is entirely another, and it not valid grounds to remove an article. That was the case in regards to the subject Common Dead. All thoroughly written debates ended up revealing the sources are plenty and legitimate to follow the minimal standards of WP:Music. You might not care, but likewise, you did not fairly assess the topic. 66.131.199.156 (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Indigenous Australians
Thanks for your attention to the page. I supplied my earliest 'recipe for Death Pudding' as a reference. The other I removed as Henry Reynolds (historian) is reference enough for the current debate.
Welcome to wikipedia Fred 11:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Any comments are welcome Fred 12:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Go symbols in Unicode, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on John Stuart Yeates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tyler John (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
John Stuart Yeates
This article was listed for discussion at WP:COIN -- samjinout 04:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ngatata Love references
Welcome re the references to the Ngatata Love article. I use the refTools gadget (my preferences \ Gadgets), makes it very easy. XLerate (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the Software patent debate refs
You're welcome! --Swen 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)
COI
Thanks for the advice Stuart - I am Sarah Whitburn (sharing this account with my partner), and indeed I was not thinking about the conflict and wasn't (and still am not sure) how I am to declare it as a user. In hindisght I offer my Sarah Whitburn page to be removed, even though it is very accurate. Your link to the current New Zealand cabinet Minister, the Hon. Richard Worth's conflict of interest (although his is arguably far more notable being a public politician rather than a private lawyer), was fascinating - thank you! I agree that there could be a presumptive bias in relation to my page, particuarly since I did not disclose this. I will acquaint myself with wikipedia's protocols better in the future. Have a great rest of the week - all the best. Lambert611 (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smartse (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Rubicon Foundation
You recently removed the Rubicon Foundation and their Rubicon Research Repository from the Digital Libraries category. I am just curious as to what criteria it did not meet for inclusion. I just want to clarify the mistake I made by adding that category a while back. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see how you guys are breaking them up now. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Unintended deletion?
Hi, did you mean to remove Kaiwhakahaere's !vote at Talk:Danevirke#Requested_move? I assume you didn't mean to, so I've put it back. -- Avenue (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, entirely my mistake. Thanks Stuartyeates (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Queen's Birthday Honours
I've finished with your scratchpad for the time being. It doesn't look as if anyone else is interested in using it as a basis for the next collaboration, so I think we should move it to the main article space. I suggest you move it to Birthday Honours 2009, and then format it similarly to Birthday Honours 2008, so the UK can add their section to it later. If you would prefer, I can move it myself.-gadfium 05:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
By "format it similarly" I don't mean to change the tables, just to create a similar lede and heading structure.-gadfium 05:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Dead Link?
Hi Stuartyeates, I noticed that you have put a dead link notice for external link to IPC website. I am confused why because as far as my knowledge, http://www.ipc.ac.nz is up and running perfectly. Besides, you put the year as 2008. Please explain. Thank you. International Pacific College (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I added the note because at the time the link wasn't working. It is now working, so I've removed the note. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stuartyeates, regarding your comment on my Wikiproject New Zealand proposal, Currently New Zealand Labour Party is a B-Class article, I have nominated it for Good article status as I believe it has been substantially improved since its last nomination. The New Zealand National Party article is currently only start class. Perhaps you would support a more wide-ranging "New Zealand Political Parties" nomination?? kiwiteen123 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'm not really interest in politics, so I'd probably abstain from supporting or opposing it, but (a) the status is generally less important than the actual content (you might consider request a reassessment); (b) List of political parties in New Zealand should probably be the nomination if you're after political parties more generally; and (c) now is probably a good time to do this, since we're not in the run up to an election (when things start getting heated/controversial).Stuartyeates (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
LCA Open Day
Hi Stuart, you don't know me, but Liam suggested I get in touch with you.
I'm planning to staff a table at the LCA Open Day in Wellington on Saturday 23rd January 2010 for Wikimedia Australia. (We will likely have lots of general Wikimedia stuff too.) I am looking for a couple of fellow question-answerers and I was wondering if you would be available and interested in helping out. thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I can provisionally say yes, but will need to check closer to the date, pfctdayelise. Are you only after my presence for the couple of hours or do you need anything else? I'm familiar with some of the organisers, the venue, the city, etc, etc. My day job is at a local library, but not the library adjacent to the event. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I am attending the conference itself, and I know some of the organising team, so I don't think any of that should be a problem - I just need to remember to bring the gear across the Tasman. The "Open Day" only runs from 11 to 2, so that's basically it. --pfctdayelise (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
GARY BRAIN
Confirmation (of a GRAMMY EQUIVALENT) - & by a New Zealand Archived EDITORS "page"
Oh & p.s... me too - (get my IP stufft in sometimes)
Someone from the IP address 125.239.181.132 has registered the account "Roxburgh NZ" with this e-mail address on the English Wikipedia
125.239.181.132 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Roxburgh NZ (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
& My 2nd p.s
will lead you to discover the 3rd?
I classify myself as (according to your science's decrees)
An Analogue Audio Scientist - (in the "applied" 3D surround_sound multi_ch "field")
(& that - is all I need to say - on that)
except to say that a nine (9) ch analogue system - has 300 virtual chs (and I can VISUALLY prove them)
Cheers & have a beautiful day
Roxburgh NZ (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
web development and database programming
Wow ?
so? how do I make at least a three (3) ch basic, but would prefer a ten (10), or thirteen (13) ch, comprehensive (with interactive LIGHTS as well) "analogue" deplexer-decoder (interactively inter_streaming via simultainious upload-download webpage - as an)
? - audio "re-player" website - ?
I am trying to figure out the logistics of providing a free to use - "website" where anyone can upload their music - both "creative" artists & "replayer" audiences alike - and have the .wav files immediately "playable" on the site - BUT for ONLY that user - and ONLY for that session - (& thus seamlessly complies with the non-breach of copyrights - as simple player rights) - to allow everyone the ability - to either "receive_back" - a quickly analogue remastered STREAMING .wav file - which "plays" this in full 3D surround - on that ONE (1) player's own 2ch player -(as if in 3D)- or I would more easily like to just have the actual player remaining "on_line" - along with the added benefit then - of "firing" a simultainiously decoded "lighting" display board as a VISUAL reference as well - (thus "playing" the player 2ch stereo - in NOT just 3D, but in 4D as well - AS "both" LIGHTS & SOUND ... across say the TEN (10) ch lighting demo board, which I currently use (my 10ch Lighting Demo Educational Video seems to have gone viral & appears in places that are still even surprising me - on the net now)
But- this is the "best" one for you to view this - (full screen)
See - problem solved - my kiwi way (insanely - oops I miss_spelt - & meant instantly)
Thus? As I actually have three (3) full function domain names - but have NONE of them with it's own "dedicated" webpage ... I am still totally in the dark - as to how to "make" even a single .txt page" - (except in free hosted sites) ... and thus STILL wouldn't even know how to "make" my interaction player - ?even if I did have a page?
Me - my science from 1965 - is IN analogue - the old way - via magnetic Tape & runs via the whole electromagnetic spectrum (I'm also a fully NZ Registered Industrial Electrician - non practicing obviously - as am on an "invalids" b/f)
Computors just seem to waste lots of my time - (although I enjoy thrashing my C&C video game CD's)
Oh & remastering "stereo" audio too
( as above - with 120 audio_videos, or just google K_RAY_Z )
Cheers
Roxburgh NZ (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh & P.S... ? IF
If you do actully get to listen to my 2nd Vid - educational "comparitor" between Mono & WIDE_MODE ..
U don't know (thus QUIX4U compares Mono_2_Stereo) AND BEYOND
Which now ACTUALLY sounds like a dull sort of mono - ?
BUT - it's (still) THE full 2ch stereo as it was .!
BEFORE - you heard (10ch Decagon_Ophonic) "analogue_surround" - in WIDEMODE - across 2ch
& If you think THAT EFFECT is just too dArN strange - (on how one's perceptions can be instantly altered)
consider the reactions of people who 1st saw COLOUR TV's after years of B&W
The B&W's rapidily paled into insignificannce - even if B&W's had been LAUDED as the best since silent movies - (that were their predecessors before them)
One glance at a COLOUR TV ... changed the viewers perceptions of TV's in general - forever
Cheers.
Roxburgh NZ (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleting a Cary Grant movie??
Kind of flummoxed here. Why would you want to delete a Wikipedia article for Wings in the Dark, a movie starring Cary Grant and Myrna Loy? The cast in itself makes the movie extremely notable (if you're unfamiliar with Cary Grant, he was chosen by AFI as the "second most important actor" ever in film, with only Humphrey Bogart ranking above him, and Myrna Loy played Nora Charles in the Thin Man films along with being one of the top three or four leading ladies at MGM throughout the '30s).
Upsmiler (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh & (about the rule of) Common Sense
I've spotted mentions of this - all the way through my flouderings - in THESE my 1st three days editing
BUT - I don't have yours - I have MINE (& it's completely different to everyone else's as well)
As I keep getting reminded - it the simplest of ways - SCHOLARS - everywhere I turn - appear in places that I am looking for other things .... AND BANG - there's another mention - of my "Common Sense" methods .. & thus - of being used to do such things as retrain other peoples brains - into keenly sharp "Elephant's Memories" - (just like mine)
I discovered this "1" - in what would appear to be a completely wrong place - to have one of MY video "info" sheet - when I at 1st saw this "here"
But see - it makes perfect "Common Sense" to me - sdrawkcaB daeR oT - whever I'm gnidaer a koob as I just zzihw back & htrof across the egap in htob directions - enil for line?
Oops - I 4 got- & you possibly haven't read the transcrpit of "my" vid's info - even though it's apparentl MY copyright (according to you wikipedias definitions of Common Sense) - but hey - if someone can bennefit morf ti - who ma I 2 compailn - suht I am glad it's no such a webste (such as thisone) - yes MY WORDS - are on this scholarly brain teaser website - ?
Hi-
I just want to fling this video of a supposedly NEW (indigo child) concept past you - as I know you "think" about WHY things work - rather than just how to make them work (all the way down at my subconscious levels of thinking sideways on things) and think this may help to explain to you - why I normally write apparent gibberish - all over the place so? how did you put this [almost-verbatum quote] written in an expressively streaming realtime thought speaking process [un-almost-verbatum-quote] (& To me - this INDIGO explanitory "video" also simplifies the style of thought processes which STREAM in all directions throughout my brain - as I problem solve - such as that (((first ever heard about name - of your ))) GARY BRAIN "request" of yours? - that took me what? a few minutes to FIND - inside your field of expertise - computors & digital information - when my 45yrs deep R&D work has only ever been in synosidual analogue waveforms?)
So- - when I am "in that mood" (which others call - ZONED_OUT or "in" or IMMERSED within)
This video rather eloquently explains how I've always thought & processed things - since before even I can remember ... especiallyy vivid - is the whole DAY of events - both before & after - when I was around 2&1/2yrs old & I vividly remember details of an accident in a vehicle - that even defies my logic ??? as to WHY I have always known - and others as to your Gary Brain article - which - even though I would ONLY have been fleeetingly interested in classical mussic conductors? or not even vaguely? ... I instantly KNEW that the grammy thing wasn't an American title but a Kiwi type - that I needed to research for OUTSIDE NZ ... to find within NZ ? Make sense?)
Ok -this is a news article video - on youtube about Indigo, Aspergurghs, Autistic, ADHD, etc so-called mental "intuitive" NEW CHILDREN - which to me - lets me now know - OTHERS also - think irrationally - with little to no USAGE - for so-called "COMMON SENSE nor normal; RULES ... and simply - they too- just "process" their thoughts just as I have done & always thought_lke ?
The New Children, Indigo Children, Crystal Children
(uploaded by) lgath68 — May 22, 2007 — 8 Min. Documentary on the new generation of children known for their abilities. The documentary touches on both scientific and theoretical aspects of the topic. Directed by Hector Sierra. Produced by Lucas Gath
Category:
Film & Animation
Tags:
crystal indigo new children metaphisical science research
Does this help explain - why I tend to rambble-on "expressively waving not just MY arms & body around - but by apparently (ab)using every KEYBOARD function on this PC...{Roxburgh NZ (talk)swilly_n1llie-2suitmyslf? ?)
Cheers.
Roxburgh NZ (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
List of Māori battles
Had any more thoughts about nominating List of Māori battles for deletion? Looks like no one is ever going to fix the format errors, and I think it's kind of a potentially endless list?? Kahuroa (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be deleted. Do you want to nominate it or should I? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't mind who. Any other reasons than those? Kahuroa (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Possible doppleganger account
Hi Stuartyeates, I wanted to alert you to the account User:StuartYeates, I don't know if it's yours, someone with the same name, or something else. If it's yours it maybe a good idea to provide links between them, otherwise maybe good to discuss with the user/an admin about changing that account name to something more distinct. (Wikipedia:Username policy) XLerate (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up XLerate (talk). The other account is an alias of mine born of (a) case-confusion; (b) my inability to remember a password reliably; and (c) my tendency to be logged in simultaneously at home and at work. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Floul1Talk To me 08:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Digital Library
Thank you. I'm always afraid that some of my more crude edits may result in more opposition than praise. Time permitting, I plan to work some more on it, and hopefully add some content instead of only removing it. Still, the article calls for major refactoring. Hopefully, you will help, too ? :) And thank you for removing all these superfluous links. --Lysytalk 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfocused hodgepodge of buzzwords and information duplicated from the interview article; this article could only really serve as a dictionary definition of what "selection criteria" are.
You recently voted in a Articles for Deletion debate regarding the Staff Nurse Ella Kate Cooke article. Since your vote, I have completely re-worked the article and added reliable sources to it. In light of this, could you please reword your vote as a response that relates to the re-worked article (whether that be Keep or Delete)? SilverserenC 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Māori articles
Kia ora, Stuartyeates. Nice to see articles being tagged for the new task force. Just a heads-up in case you didn't know, we've asked to have most of the Māori-related articles bot-tagged. Feel free to keep tagging if you like, though. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 09:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
If you do continue tagging, can you please assess the maori-importance= too; this will save a lot of work later! Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The only way of tagging articles are list-based or category-based. I'm using textual search only. Some of the ones I'm finding I'm adding to WPNZ on my way through... Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your reassessment of Apirana Ngata, would you mind having a look at what I wrote on the talk page about article quality? Schwede66 07:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, me not paying attention. I've reverted my changes. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People who attempted suicide
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey Junior Kurariki until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Lear'sFool 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Koha
Hello, I am sorry I cannot contribute towards making more serious improvements to those two articles.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I contributed minor grammar and formatting changes. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
WPNZ Assessment tags
Hi Stuart,
Please do not add "Maori=|maori_importance=" parameters to WPNZ templates except where you are doing it as maori=yes.
It is only one of three current task forces (with two additional future ones in the back of my mind), and has led to errors such as my putting the main project assessment in the maori-importance parameter in a couple of cases. dramatic (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Dean Wickliffe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
I have declined your tagging of these two articles as {{db-band}} does not apply to album articles. The more applicable tag would be {{db-album}}. However, in these two cases, such a tag would also be declined as the artist's articles exist. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. NoformationTalk 08:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for drawing my attention to the Mark Gimenez article. I have added several reliable third-party sources, including in-depth coverage of the subject, and updated the article reflect that at least one of his novels was a New York Times best-seller. I'm content to let the deletion discussion play out as it may draw in other editors to further improve the article but if, after reviewing the article as it now stands, you'd care to withdraw the nomination that would be your option. - Dravecky (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Milner Schools until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. JRPG (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You did a "per nom"at the deletion discussion, so I am writing you just as I did he. I would ask that you re-visit the article to see that the nominator's concerns have been addresses. The unsourced new article that was first nominated has now been expanded and sourced since that nomination. It is my thought that we do toss what can be easily fixed simply because the article was incomplete. He asked for sources that addressed the film drectly and in detail and apart from those you found, Glasgow Herald addresses the film and its controversy directly and in detail,[1] as do articles in Yorkshire Post.[2][3][4] That the film has then made it into the enduring record is futher evidence of its notability. Beter for the project and its readers that we continue to improve the article rather than toss it because an earlier version was seen as flawed. Regards, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Why did you tag this as a hoax? I can see nothing to suggest this is anything other than a non-notable academic website. Fences&Windows 06:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The name AURA and some of the imagery on the website seemed suspicious to me at the time. Maybe I was being paranoid. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Nah, they really are out to get you! Scientists love making up stupid acronyms for web services. Fences&Windows 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Improvement of article: your help appreciated
Hi, Stuartyeates. On the basis of your comments, I made major changes in the article on Peter Belohlavek adding new references (newspapers, reviews and books) from reliable sources and also erased all information that did not have a reference. I was hoping you could help me to confirm if these editions have helped in the improvement of the article so as to remove the issues that were added above the article.
Your help is appreciated.Prague3 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The article certainly seems better than it did. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Please urgent. Thank you for your quick feedback. I´ve been doing some research on tagging and if I am not mistaken, having made these major changes I believe I could myself remove the tags above the article and add the reason for having done so in the editing section, is that correct? If so, I will do. If not, please I would highly appreciate your advice on how to follow the process to have the tags removed. Consider that these tags damage the image of Peter Belohlavek. Thanks. I appreciate your help. Prague3 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The tags do no damage to the image of Peter Belohlavek in the eyes of anyone who understands wikipedia or who actually reads them. I do not believe it would be appropriate for you to remove the tags yourself. I suggest that you follow the process at WP:FEEDStuartyeates (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Ajit Rangnekar
He is not an academic and has never been one, so I think this does not fall under notability guidelines for academics. He is notable as being the appointed dean of one of the world's leading business schools and is frequently seen speaking at conferences and in the media. Other Deans of (lower ranked) leading business schools seem to be acceptable? e.g. Geoff Meeks of Cambridge Judge Business School. --Tintomat0es (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Unless he meets either WP:PROF or WP:GNG, the page needs to be deleted. If there are other pages that don't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, they need to be deleted too, I just haven't run across them yet. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked the sock puppet in which you are using. I will say it once; do not do that again, or the next time you will be blocked. Regards, –MuZemike 03:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Erase Peter Belohlavek immediately
My name is Peter Belohlavek. Last night I learned that an article with my name was published in Wikipedia and I made a copy to have evidence. Thanks to an assistant I am able to use Wikipedia.
A client informed me that this information appears as the first results when my name is Googled.
Your comments are empty value judgements that degrade my personal image and credibility. They are also a demonstration that you are an ignorant in the field of human complex adaptive systems and cannot evaluate magnitudes.
Therefore, I demand that the site on the Wikipedia be immediately erased.
In the meantime, enjoy the power of your impunity. You should degrade only dead people. They cannot defend their rights.Legal-responsibility (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
A Marsupial mole for you!
The Southern Marsupial Mole (N. typhlops , Stirling 1889) shaped barnstar of helping me out
Thank you! Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Please elaborate on your primary source template tagging at the self-titled Calm Down Juanita album (linked above). What is your basis for tagging the article with the claim indicated on the tag, please?
Also, I am confused by your use of multiple user names, such as the one you used to tag that article : User:Not your siblings' deletionist, which apparently redirects here, to User:Stuartyeates, and then there is also apparently User:StuartYates, as was brought to your attention earlier and which you've confirmed above. duff 09:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a criteria for inclusion called the General notability guidelines which are at WP:GNG and which are based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. the article Calm Down Juanita (album) currently does not have any such sources and so I marked it as needing some. More specific requirements for albums can be found at WP:NALBUMS, but embodies the same requirements. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to understand Wikipedia:HotCat yet, but I thought I'd bring to your attention that one way or another in your adding "Category: Latin America" to the Latin American Initiative on Drugs and Democracy article using HotCat you capitalized it thusly "Category: LAtin america". That resulted in a red-letter category. I've corrected it, but thought maybe you'd want to know something went awry. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Update tags
Hello Stuart, you have placed update tags on CTV Building and Cathedral Square, Christchurch. Would you mind dropping a brief note on the articles' talk pages as to what it is that needs amending? I'm quite happy to look after that, but a bit of a hint what needs doing would be good. Schwede66 04:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
George Lewis (Royal Marines officer)
StuartYeates,
The aforementioned was an officer in one of the first amphibious special forces units, and was present when the White House was set ablaze. As we approach the bicentenarary of the War of 1812, interest in this conflict is starting to grow in the UK, and in North America, even if it is perceived as less relevant in other corners of the globe.
With regard to 'adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic', three sources were specifially included; I lose count of the poorly sourced artivles that I come across, which I why I only commenced this stub when I had three sources of info. Keith H99 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I note that your comment about an officer in one of the first amphibious special forces units', and was present when the White House was set ablaze' is not reflected in the article; it should be, since that's exactly the kind of claim that makes him notable. Also I've tagged many, many articles as poorly sourced; the existence of other poorly sourced articles does not excuse poor sourcing on this one. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not consider a stub article to be "poorly sourced" if it does indeed use several sources of info, and indicates where specific facts have been sourced from. I lose count of the articles where there are either no mention of sources, or where the facts do not cite a clear source of data. As an article, it does need to grow, and to contain further sources, but I still do not consider this to be a poorly sourced stub article. Keith H99 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The wikipedia minimum sources standard is set out at WP:GNG; until the article in question reaches that standard, it will always be open to challenge by any editor who chooses to do so. If your personal ideas of what "poorly sourced" might look like are not as high as that, I suggest that you make an exception for wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Minor barnstar
Thanks for your changes to the Duffy Books in Homes page Stuart. As you can tell I'm an utter novice, having never created a page before, so your amendments are much appreciated. philiph (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Notability and references tags to two academic journal entries
Hi Stuart, you added some notability/references tags to two entries I created about some academic journals. I had meant the entries to remain in my userspace until I'd finished them, but mistakenly created them in the mainspace. I have now expanded the entries Applied Psychological Measurement and Comparative Political Studies. As these are academic journals with an Impact Factor, I believe there's no need for the notability tag. Are you happy for the tags to be removed? Thanks, Anton. AntonV (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to remove the tags anytime you feel that the articles have reached the standard outlined in WP:GNG and your reasons for believing that are clear from the article. It would be great if you link to the web of science went to the web of science, rather than the web of knowledge and if the link actually linked to the information you discuss. There are link a billion pages on the web of knowledge, please link to the specific one(s). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - I was unsure about the etiquette around removing tags. For academic journals these notability guidelines are also relevant: Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). AntonV (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I invite you to re-read the header of that page, particularly the bit which says It has not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline.Stuartyeates (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have re-read the header. AntonV (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Anton, in the four years I have worked here as one of the two editors most involved with academic journals, there has never been an AfD decision contrary to that rule, though there has been ocassional disagreement about borderline titles. I will charitably think that Stuartyeates is unaware of this, DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know, for I came here after replying there. Perhaps you should have said it was a test case, for it seems otherwise inexplicable. I have notified the appropriate Wikiproject, which should have been done also. You will perhaps understand my general purposes here from my rather detailed user page. I probably need to explain in advance that although I think you about as wrong as it is possible to be, in terms of the role of COI in editing, in the appropriate criteria for journals, and in this specific case, and will say so in as strong terms as necessary, this is not a reflection on you otherwise, and I don't want this to get over-personal. to avoid the temptation, I'm going to stay away from your talk p. till this is over. I am available by email if you wish. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Sam Johnson (New Zealand)
On 24 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sam Johnson (New Zealand), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2010, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said that 21-year-old Student Volunteer Army organiser Sam Johnson "might be Prime Minister one day"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
No problem. I saw he had died while I was away on leave & now catching up. He lead several digs in my local area.— Rodtalk 10:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Anatomy Of Distort
Hi Stuart - noted your comments and adding reliable, secondary sources to the article. Thanks for your comments - Best wishes— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangfest (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Stuart - the reliable secondary source critea has been met - please could you remove box - kind thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.116.162 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles on biological databases tagged with {{self-published}}
I noticed that you recently tagged many biological database articles as self-published. Reading the guidelines linked to this template suggests that this template is not appropriate for these article. The works are published in a peer reviewed scientific journal which is a far more rigourous process than the self published sources listed: books (self published), patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets. While we might prefer to have only secondary sources in Wikipedia, for many cases in science we only have primary sources such as these written by those directly inolved in the work. I'm sure that we would not want to disallow these from inclusion. Anyway let me know what you think. Alexbateman (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that:
A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary
Hence the introduction of the published biological database article that reviews the field at a minimum establishes why a database of this type would be notable. Furthermore the fact that the article was accepted for publication in a peer review journal strongly implies that the particular implementation of the database is notable. Finally each of these databases were at least briefly mentioned in the introductory article in the same issue of the journal and this introductory article is a secondary source. Boghog (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, unfortunately I was forced to remove the PROD tag from this article. The article has already been through proposed deletion before (see the article talk page), and any further deletion attempts are considered controversial which makes it ineligible for PROD. However, I've had the article on my watchlist for a long time because I meant to get around to bringing it to WP:AFD someday. If you wanted to start the process, feel free, otherwise I'll probably do it myself when I get the time and feel up to it. -- Atama頭 16:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on K!TV, because the article was kept following a deletion discussion in 2005 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K!TV) and is therefore permanently ineligible for deletion under the proposed deletion process. I only took this action to comply with process; it is not an endorsement for keeping the article. If you still wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Hello Stuartyeates! I hope you enjoy this cookie as a amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwistertalk 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleting a Cary Grant movie??
Kind of flummoxed here. Why would you want to delete a Wikipedia article for Wings in the Dark, a movie starring Cary Grant and Myrna Loy? The cast in itself makes the movie extremely notable (if you're unfamiliar with Cary Grant, he was chosen by AFI as the "second most important actor" ever in film, with only Humphrey Bogart ranking above him, and Myrna Loy played Nora Charles in the Thin Man films along with being one of the top three or four leading ladies at MGM throughout the '30s).
Upsmiler (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I do New_pages_patrol. I look at hundreds of new articles to give feedback to their creators as part of the wikipedia quality control. I tagged the article for notability because it didn't contain any claim of notability nor any good references. The Internet Movie Database, while useful for facts, is a crowd-sourced website that doesn't count for notability. The article need to explain why the film is notable and use multiple quality sources. You're right, I'd not heard of Cary Grant. You're wrong, I don't what to delete the article, I want to see it improved. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Using WP:PROD to see articles improved is arguably biased and there is a full range of less disruptive ways to request the improvement of an article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I like your username
That is all. Larryisgood (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
HK housing estates articles
Your input would be useful at the discussion that I have started on the topic, and where I have given some background. Plase see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Thank you. olivier (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
While I would probably be behind you on your prods, I believe this was a bad move, and makes your actions seem indiscriminate. --Ohconfucius¡digame! 05:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that one was a mistake. And, in retrospect, those not already tagged for notability should have been tagged for notability and revisited at a latter time. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
ANDF
Thanks for pointing out that the ANDF article was missing third-party sources. I've added a few, but hesitate to take your tag off, because I was affiliated with the ANDF projects (see WP:COI). Take a look and see whether you think these sources suffice (for now at least). --Macrakis (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
